As a child I was the person immediately assumed to have committed the misdeeds. Admittedly, I was a mischievous kid and often the assumption of guilt was rightly placed. However, the few occasions when I was incorrectly accused left me burning with indignation and for some reason, shame.
How much worse must it be for those who have had allegations littered across media headlines before having had a chance to defend themselves?
My column last week prompted a call from newly instituted Home Affairs director-general Mavuso Msimang and he openly revealed his concerns on the controversy surrounding his appointment.
A subsequent statement was even more direct. "Msimang feels that he is already a victim of delayed justice. He believes the manner in which the matter was first brought to the public's attention, some 16 months ago, constitutes unethical journalism, since neither he, nor other sources of information, were given an opportunity to respond to the allegations."
Kangaroo court
The way the law works in SA and most countries is that an accused is believed to be innocent until he or she is proven to be guilty in a court of law. Public opinion, on the other hand, appears to work the other way around, particularly when it comes to sex-related allegations.
Inexplicably, a not-guilty verdict is just not enough to sway public opinion back to a presumption of innocence.
Kimberley Guest, senior journalist
Within the media, the well-established marketing rule of 'sex sells', ensures that cases involving public figures receive significant coverage. As for the public, immediate reaction to such allegations tends to fall on the presumption of guilt.
However, we should be careful to jump to such conclusions. The fact is that such charges are sometimes laid with ulterior motives and the accused is sometimes the victim. Think of the Jacob Zuma rape trial or even the more recent charges of sexual harassment against University of KwaZulu-Natal vice chancellor Malegapuru Makgoba and council chairman Vincent Maphai, which were found to have no substance.
Inexplicably, a not-guilty verdict is just not enough to sway public opinion back to a presumption of innocence. Those wrongfully accused will tell you that they and their families face suspicion and scepticism long after the judgement has been relegated to a dusty library within a court house.
And the media is partly responsible for this long-term impact.
Take for instance the case of sexual harassment brought against Msimang. This week, a Google search for 'Mavuso+Msimang+sexual+harassment' delivered 191 results, mostly from news articles. But how many articles would a "not guilty" verdict inspire? And would these just be an inch or two of coverage hidden on a page considered to be inconsequential, or equal in length and positioning to the original reports?
Share